The majority voted against an amendment introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means it failed.

What did this amendment do?

Senator Shoebridge explained that:

This amendment seeks to remove the restraint on the National Anti-Corruption Commission in terms of holding public hearings.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 73, page 70 (lines 20 to 24), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) The Commissioner may decide to hold a hearing, or part of a hearing, in public if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by ACT Senator David Pocock (Independent), which means they failed.

What did these amendments do?

Regarding amendments (1) to (4), Senator Pocock explained that:

These amendments were moved by the member for Indi, Helen Haines, in the lower house. Again, I would like to thank her for her work on this issue over many years.

These amendments make clear that pork-barrelling is corruption. We've seen concerns in communities across the country with the way that public funds have been allocated for political gain. This makes it clear that that can be investigated. I'm also concerned that this bill falls short when it comes to conduct by third parties that could impair public confidence in public administration—in particular, practices of collusive tendering, dishonestly obtaining benefit from public funding decisions and defrauding public revenue. This makes it clear that those are included.

Regarding amendments (5) and (6), he explained:

This amendment will require the minister to table a statement of reasons if they deviate from the recommendations of the NACC joint select oversight committee in relation to the budget. This does not bind the government to giving them that money; it simply provides an extra piece of transparency so that Australians know if we are short-changing the body that is going to be tasked with holding people in these places, public servants and others, who are using valuable Australian resources that should be spent in the best interests of Australians, to account.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 8, page 15 (line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; (e) any conduct of a public official that involves the allocation of public funds or other resources to targeted electors for partisan political purposes.

(2) Clause 8, page 15 (after line 20), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that impairs, or that could impair, public confidence in public administration and which could involve any of the following matters:

(a) collusive tendering;

(b) fraud in relation to applications for licences, permits or other authorities under legislation designed to protect health and safety or the environment or designed to facilitate the management and commercial exploitation of resources;

(c) dishonestly obtaining or assisting in obtaining, or dishonestly benefiting from, the payment or application of public funds for private advantage or the disposition of public assets for private advantage;

(d) defrauding the public revenue;

(e) fraudulently obtaining or retaining employment or appointment as a public official.

(3) Clause 8, page 15 (line 21), omit "does not", substitute "and subsection (1A) do not".

(4) Clause 8, page 16 (line 15), after "paragraph (1)(a)", insert "or subsection (1A)".

(5) Clause 177, page 148 (line 19), before "to review", insert "at least once every 12 months,".

(6) Clause 177, page 148 (after line 30), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) If:

(a) in a report mentioned in paragraph (1)(g), the Committee makes a recommendation in relation to the NACC's finances and resources; and

(b) the Minister decides not to follow the recommendation;

then:

(c) the Minister must prepare a written statement of reasons for the decision not to follow the recommendation; and

(d) the Minister must cause a copy of the statement of reasons to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sittings days of that House after making the decision.

The majority voted against amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 1730 introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means they failed.

What do the amendments do?

Regarding amendment (2), Senator Shoebridge explained that:

Amendment (2) seeks to re-insert a provision that was stripped out by the other place in relation to the definition of 'corruption' found in section 8 of the bill.

Regarding amendment (3), he explained that:

our amendment (3) is simply to put in a notation to the definition of corruption that provides, by way of guidance, that corrupt conduct may include conduct that constitutes pork-barrelling or political donations for the purpose of influencing a decision or policy made by a public official.

Amendment text

(2) Clause 8, page 15 (line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add:

; (e) any conduct of a public official in that capacity that constitutes, involves or is engaged in for the purpose of corruption of any other kind.

(3) Clause 8, page 15 (after line 20), at the end of subclause (1), add:

Note: Corrupt conduct may include conduct that constitutes pork barrelling or political donations for the purpose of influencing a decision or policy made by a public official.

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens), which means it failed.

What did the amendment do?

Senator Shoebridge explained that:

This amendment, if accepted, would fill a gap in the bill. The bill as proposed, in its principles and objects, does not contain one key statement of principle, which is that we are establishing an independent national anticorruption commission. We heard in the committee, from witnesses very familiar with the New South Wales commission, that that clear statement of intent in the objects of the bill, stating unambiguously that we are establishing an independent national anticorruption commission, will be important, because, if there is any ambiguity about how the act should operate, and it faces legal challenge, one of the first things a court will do is go back to the objects and say, 'What was parliament trying to establish here?' Surely we can unite on this and say that one of the key objects of this bill is to establish an independent national anticorruption commission.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 7), at the end of clause, add:

; (e) to establish an independent National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by NSW Senator Ross Cadell (Nationals), which means it failed.

Motion text

That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 December 2023:

The impact of high-voltage electricity transmission infrastructure on agricultural and environmental land, with particular reference to:

a) the effects of using overhead and underground transmission infrastructure on agricultural and environmental assets and the communities they support;

b) the Commonwealth's role in the development of transmission infrastructure;

c) opportunities for the Commonwealth to engage and work constructively with states and territories, private enterprise, and local communities and other stakeholders in order to reduce the potential for transmission infrastructure to negatively impact agricultural and environmental assets ; and

d) any other related matters.

The majority voted against amendments introduced by Western Australian Senator Dean Smith (Liberal) on behalf of Victorian Senator Jane Hume (Liberal), which means they failed.

The amendments related to annual members’ meetings.

The majority voted in favour of a second reading amendment introduced by Victorian Senator James Paterson (Liberal), which means it passed.

What are second reading amendments?

Second reading amendments like these don't make legal changes themselves, but instead represent the will of the Senate. They add words to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill.

Motion text

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government:

(a) to clarify key definitions in the bill, in particular the meaning of 'serious' and 'repeated' in relation to breaches under the Act;

(b) to develop a tiered penalty regime that could take into account less severe breaches, and that seeks to differentiate between companies that have acted with malice and those that have taken all reasonable steps but have fallen victim to a cyber attack;

(c) to direct the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner to issue guidance material that addresses the application of penalties, and clarifies best practice for compliance with the regime; and

(d) to consider the adequacy of current resourcing and staffing levels for the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Australian Cyber Security Centre for each to perform their functions, and to address all of the concerns raised by the former government in the Privacy Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Online Privacy and Other Measures) Bill 2021".

The majority voted against an amendment introduced by West Australian Senator Dorinda Cox (Greens), which means it failed.

Amendment text

(1) Page 6 (after line 30), at the end of Part 2, add:

11A Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory

No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on equity investment for the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory, including common use marine infrastructure and regional logistic hubs, as described on page 163 of Budget Paper No. 2 2022-23, which was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 25 October 2022.

What is the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct?

According to ABC News, the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct is:

where the NT government has proposed an industrial precinct featuring petrochemicals, minerals processing and renewables-based hydrogen.

The project, which is expected to include a jetty and other "common user marine infrastructure", was initially backed by the former Morrison government, which allocated the same funding over 10 years in its budget earlier this year.

Labor has described the precinct as a "a pathway to a decarbonised economy", but environmentalists have been highly critical of its expected use of fracked gas.

Though note a more recent report stated that:

The Northern Territory government has been accused of "greenwashing" after removing the term "petrochemicals" from its official documents about a new industrial hub on Darwin Harbour.

The yet-to-be developed site at Middle Arm — which received a $1.5 billion funding commitment in the federal budget — was previously promoted by the NT as a site for "low emission petrochemicals, renewable hydrogen and minerals processing".

But after environmentalists launched a campaign against the planned use of gas for some manufacturing at the site, Chief Minister Natasha Fyles said "mistruths" were being spread.

"This is not a petrochemical plant," Ms Fyles said earlier this month.

"This is a sustainable future project that is based on renewable energy into the future."

Her comments were at odds with multiple online government documents which referred to petrochemicals as being among the mix of industries, including renewables and minerals, that could be developed at the precinct.

But the term "petrochemicals" has now been scrubbed from many of those documents, while a new official website promoting the precinct features no references to the term.

The majority voted against a second reading amendment introduced by Queensland Senator [Malcolm Roberts](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/malcolm_roberts] (One Nation), which means it failed. The amendment would have added the text below to the usual second reading motion "That the bill be read a second time" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of a bill.

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that many Australians are unable to access medical cannabis owing to the bureaucratic framework in place, and the cost to patients; and

(b) calls on the Government:

(i) to make natural, whole plant, Australian medical cannabis available to any Australian with a medical need, by doctor's prescription, filled by a pharmacist on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; and

(ii) to ensure that the decision to prescribe medical cannabis is a matter between only the doctor and the patient, which is subject to real time prescription monitoring in the same way as other controlled medicines".

The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "that the bill be read a second time". To read a bill for a second time is to agree with its main idea. This amendment was introduced by NSW Senator David Shoebridge (Greens).

Amendment text

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(I) in 2020 the Community Affairs References Committee, as part of its inquiry into the current barriers to patient access to medicinal cannabis in Australia, concluded that 'the significant costs associated with accessing medicinal cannabis legally are causing a large number of Australians to purchase or grow illicit cannabis for self-medication', and

(ii) the committee recommended that the Government encourage a review of state and territory criminal legislation in relation to amnesties for the possession and/or cultivation of cannabis for genuine personal medicinal use; and

(b) calls on the Government to work with state and territory governments to develop a nationwide amnesty from criminal prosecution for people who have a legitimate medicinal cannabis prescription and are home growing cannabis for their personal use".